Warning to Bubba Wallace?

Seems to be the nominal approach by leftists { Think Antifa }
and Democrats when they can't make valid points.
Debate is a Terrible thing to waste.

 

Kneejerk reactions seldom lean in favor of the poster. I was awaiting your "oops" but................

 

Could be as simple as their diet.Too much Capt'n Crunch to start the day
off.That and pure B.S. as they frequent their favorite Fake News sites.
For a lefty ...Brain food is something they have nightmares about.

 

Of course, you believed it though, and said as much, and fretted over the implications. no? So instead of getting all the information, tormenting and sewing fear was more important to you.

 

The observation was bout your style here, and the fact that factually, you're wrong, but can't accept it, when noted, and instead scream at folks instead. This isn't my issue, it's yours.

 

No, I was just sharing a story I saw on the news.

 

LOL... Nah, you believed it. It confirmed your theory of racial discontent and this was a way for you to demonstrate your discontent by producing this thread. If all you said was, here's a story, comments, you might have a leg, but when you insert your own basis of fear, it becomes more your narrative than the story so shoddily prepared in the media. The story is now unfounded. Just admit it, and more along. No need to apologize or anything...

 

I have no intention of apologizing. But, thanks anyway.

 

Then I recommend that you cease and desist from wasting debate by posting invalid DEFLECTIONS that have no point whatsoever.

 

Kneejerk denialism all you have left?

Sad!

 

Who is expressing fear? The facts are that certain Southern groups such as the KKK, White Citizens Council (Miss circa 1960's ) , anti integration groups and the like did and do use it as some prop that identifies them and reminds them of the old south when Jim Crow was the law of the land. It reminds me of watching Russians who hold onto the old USSR flag as a reminder of their days of "glory".
The Confederate flag represents the days of slavery as the Soviet flag represents the Gulags and genocide in the "workers paradise".
No fear just like watching toddlers holding onto their blankie.

 

Again, what you think is absurd doesn't matter. I have their words. What you choose to invent instead does not matter. I encourage you to read what they actually had to say on the matter.

 

No.
Somebody jumped to conclusions, and the conveniently incurious ran with it because it fit their narrative.

 

The US did not violate the legal rights of the South. Some states refused to return escaped slaves. Not the US. Specific states. And the slave states always had the option of taking that to court.

The South had sworn to uphold a contract. They were worried that the contract didn't do enough to protect their "right" to own people, that they didn't have enough representation to protect that "right," and that the US was on a path to legally end that "right." So they abandoned their contract and tried to steal property that the contract said belonged to the US, and they were willing to murder to do so. So, yes, they were traitors. And their primary concern in their act of rebellion was slavery.

 

No what you have are cherrypicked, misquoted versions of their words while you ignore their direct declarations of unconstitutionality as being the cause of secession.

I’ll ask you again. Did the south need to go to war to save slavery or not?

 

That’s absurd the SCOTUS ruled the northern states were in violation of the constitution in regards to their personal liberty laws in Priggs. The northern states AND federal government ignored this decision and continued passing them.

Furthermore your assertion that the south was worried about losing power is demonstrably false. They had already won that argument for slavery’s expansion west in the SCOTUS. In Dred Scott the scotus ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to demand as a prerequisite of entry that an incoming territory be nonslaveholding.

Stop cherry picking propaganda from your favored website and read some real history.

 

Moreover because the north was in violation of the constitution and refused to cease even after being ordered to do so by the SCOTUS, then on what grounds do you assert the confederates should be forced to follow the constitution?

 

Oh man, that's funny!

 

Show anything I've stated that was misquoted. Go ahead. As for "cherrypicking" (code here for "accurate quotes that I do not like and can't address"), I've linked to full sources and can do so again.

The only person here ignoring their direct declarations is you.

I'll grant that you can find a tiny handful of statements after they lost the war or when they were courting Britain and trying to cover up their purposes. But when they were seceding, they were unequivocal as to their purpose: slavery, both its preservation and its further spread.

Again: they thought the US was a threat to the institution of slavery. They repeatedly stated this. My opinion of whether or not that was a realistic fear is meaningless, as is yours. When it comes to THEIR motivations, THEIR testimony matter. I'm sorry that the historical facts are stacked against you. You don't get to erase history just because you don't like it.

 

Then they had a rock-solid legal case that they could have brought.

It is your word against theirs. Why should I believe that you are a better authority on the motivations of the Confederates than the Confederate themselves were? Serious question.

I've relied SOLELY on primary sources for all of my arguments, not opinions from any website. I encourage you to try reading what the Confederacy had to say about itself.

One more question for you: you keep saying this was about Constitutionality and not slavery. So, you must be sitting on a mountain of Constitutional issues that the South was concerned about which had nothing to do with slavery. I mean, I see lots of mentions of the Constitution in their writings (sometimes to criticize it for not being pro-slavery enough, which they "fixed" in their own Constitution, but every time they get into specifics, it is always about slavery. So, please, share your mountain of primary sources showing other Constitutional issues that they were willing to secede over. This should be good.

 

That is why you buy it from experienced moonshiners..lol

The south is a land if dry counties and towns. No legal whiskey can be bought. So there is a big market for moonshine.

 

I thought that dry rule was only on Sundays. The only state I know of that has permanent dry rules in some counties is AK, for all the obvious reasons. In fact, I think most Indian resses are dry too.

 

On the grounds that they swore an oath to do so.

Also, you were fond of quoting Davis's words after the War, and he certainly did like to tip-toe around the issue of slavery. So, let's see what he had to say before the War, back when his state was seceding. He was part of the delegation that wrote the following:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course."

Okay, cool, so he's about to tell us all about those reasons! So let's read what comes next.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Oh, ****.

You can read the rest if you want. Sure, they mention the Constitution . . . but specifically in relation to slavery. This is why the song-and-dance that the revisionists do never works. They keep trying to talk about "other causes" besides slavery, and in order to do so, they get as abstract as they can and avoid specifics like the plague. "Um, um, it was about States' rights! I was about property rights! It was over concerns about the Constitution!" But ask them to be specific about WHAT States' rights and WHAT property rights and WHAT Constitutional concerns, and they have nothing. When the Southern states did, in their own words, get into specifics about these issues, it turns out they weren't separate issues at all, but instead were all just different ways they talked about slavery.

But that flag in you icon, as I've mentioned before, was never the flag of the Confederacy anyway. This one, however, was:



Hard to see the white over this white background, but the flag is mostly white. I wonder why? I guess we can ask the guy who designed it.

"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race: a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

"Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.

As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause."

 

We got em here in Ms. And Alabama too. Completely dry.

So now you know of two more states that have dry counties. Lol